BAL KRISHAN Vs. BIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the plaintiff who has filed the present second appeal. The suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is not his legally wedded wife and the defendant No. 2 is not his son, was decreed by the learned trial Court which decree stands set aside by the learned first appellate Court on appeal filed by the defendants. Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as the plaintiff" and the defendants".

(2.) The learned trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties found that the defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife nor the defendant No.2 is the legitimate or illegitimate son of the plaintiff - On analysis, it was found that the plaintiff never married to defendant No.1 and the rituals and ceremonies that are required to be performed in accordance with the status of the family of the plaintiff were not performed according to the Dharam Shastra" and thus the defendant No.1 is not proved to be his wife One birth entry in respect of the defendant No.2 Ex PW -4/A was discarded on the ground that the name of the father was inserted latter after some cuttings and that proper procedure was not followed, I was said that the name that existed earlier before the recording of the name of the plaintiff was Budh Ram,

(3.) Learned appellate Court on re -appraisal of the evidence and after weighing the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties came to hold that the learned trial Court had fallen into factual error while deciding the entry which in the present case was placed on record as Ex. DA to show the birth of the defendant No.2 as oo October 10, 1983. The said entry admittedly came from the office of the Registrar of deaths and births, Kullu and it shows the defendant No.2 to be the son of the plaintiff. Originally, by mistake the Dame of the father of defendant No.1 Budh Ram came to be recorded and immediately after coming to know, the same was got corrected by filing an affidavit. The learned first appellate Court also came to hold that the marriage was solemnized in a temple by performing "Ganesh Pooja" and her statement is duly supported by priest who performed the wedding after performing "Mantras" The findings which were arrived at by the learned trial Court were ordered to be set aside and it was also observed that the suit appears to have been filed by the plaintiff to wringle out the liability of maintenance. On the ultimate analysis, it was found that the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of any relief of declaration or injunction and consequently the appeal was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the suit.